Agenda item

(A report by Fiona White, Principal Licensing and Land Charges Officer)

The Principal Licensing and Land Charges Officer presented a report, which sought the Committee’s support for the intention to suspend the licences of those drivers who had not submitted certificates to evidence the mandatory safeguarding training had been completed, using authority delegated to officers in Part 3(a) of the Council’s Constitution.

On 28 June 2016, the Committee had adopted a revised Application Policy and Relevance of Convictions Guidelines in relation to Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers and Private Hire Operators.

The revised policy included a requirement that applicants completed the Licensing Authority’s Safeguarding Awareness Training.  Initially, existing drivers were required to undertake the training at the time their licence renewal was due.  However, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council, following two cases of child safeguarding issues in Boston which led to the revocation of the drivers’ licences, it was considered necessary to meet the Council’s safeguarding obligations, that the training to be undertaken without further delay.

Drivers were advised in writing of the requirement to undertake the training by 31 August 2017 and that a recommendation would be made to the Regulatory & Appeals Committee that the licences of drivers who had failed to complete the training be suspended until this requirement was met.

At the time the report was published, 33 licensed drivers had failed to submit certificates to evidence that the training had been satisfactorily completed.  That number was now 30.  There was also an additional four licences that were already suspended, mainly on medical grounds, and these too would also have to complete the safeguarding training but as their licences were currently suspended, they could not be suspended for a second time.

The licences could be suspended under the provisions of Section 61(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 using the grounds of “any other reasonable cause”.  In Part 3a of the Constitution there was an officer delegation to the Solicitor to the Council to suspend Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licences.  The Solicitor to the Council had further delegated this authority to the Principal Licensing & Land Charges Officer. 

Whilst drivers were regularly referred to the Regulatory & Appeals Sub-Committee for consideration of their case, there were cases where it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter using authority delegated to officers and it was suggested that this was one of those cases for several reasons, including the number and similarity of cases, and also that the drivers had been given the opportunity to put forward any grounds to be considered prior to their licence being suspended and had been made aware that if they have not completed the training then suspension of their licence would be considered.

These suspensions would not take effect until after the 21 day appeal period or, if appealed, until after the appeal was disposed of.  Providing the training was undertaken during the appeal period, no driver would be disadvantaged by a licence suspension.

It was recommended that the Committee supported the intention of officers to use delegated authority to suspend the licences of those drivers who had not submitted training certificates. 

Members raised various questions.  In response, it was explained that the training was free of charge and involved two online courses; one being of approximately 5 minutes duration with no test; the other approximately one hour with a test.  Drivers were advised to take advantage of the assistance on offer at the library if they were not IT-literate; once logged on, it was simple to proceed through the course.  All drivers had completed a comprehension test and there were none who could not read or write; however, had there been any who could not do so, officers would have happily assisted by going through the training verbally.

Drivers who had said they were no longer driving had been advised to return their badges; if they did not do so their licences could be suspended.  Drivers worked closely together and news spread quickly amongst them, so it was difficult to say why some had not completed the training.  It could be the case that some drivers had changed address and simply not received the letters, though it was a requirement of the licence to advise the Council of a change of address.  However, some were difficult to engage with and some might simply not be reading the letters.  If the Committee was minded to delegate authority to officers to suspend the licences, officers would telephone the remaining drivers after the 21 day appeal period. 

In response to concern as to how suspensions could be policed, it was explained that larger companies could be contacted to advise them of the suspension of their drivers.  Those who were independent and self-employed could be contacted individually to be requested to come in and hand over their badges; being asked to do so might prompt more to undertake the training.  Also, the County Council would be contacted about the drivers who had school contracts; these contracts were lucrative and the risk of losing them might encourage more to undertake the training. 

The training did not involve criminal record checks; these were completed on renewal.  Approximately 200-220 drivers had so far completed the training.  Badges were meant to be worn by the drivers, but were often hung from a vehicle’s internal mirror, which was acceptable as it allowed passengers to view the driver’s name and number. 

The first letter advising drivers of the training had been issued to all taxi companies over a period of time in June 2017.  Before sending the second letter on 23^rd August, all companies were contacted and advised one or more of their drivers had not undertaken the training and more had undertaken it as a result. 

Details of the right of appeal were clearly set out in the suspension notice and contained within the guidance that all drivers had.  It was approximately £400 to appeal to the magistrate’s court. 

During debate, Members voiced agreement with the officer’s recommendations.  They recognised the Council’s duty of care to the public to ensure that drivers were safe, particularly in view of failings of various bodies, including the taxi licensing authority in Rotherham, with respect to child and vulnerable adult safeguarding.  Suspension could be reversed once a driver completed the training. 

One Member expressed the view that the letters to the drivers did not set out the situation in strong enough terms in the initial paragraph and that some could find the training difficult.  However, the other Members agreed the letters had been explicit and the Principal Licensing and Land Charges Officer advised the Committee that no drivers had reported any difficulty completing it and were well aware that the licensing team would help them.

Members were advised that drivers had been advised about the obligation to undertake the training when it was first agreed.  As two licences had been revoked due to safeguarding incidents, the Council would be open to criticism if there was a further incident and these steps had not been taken. 

Drivers who continued to drive following suspension would lose their licences.  Drivers be prosecuted under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 or the Police and Town Clause of the 1847 Act.  There was a set period of time within which licences would not be reissued. 

The Principal Licensing and Land Charges Officer added that Members would be updated on progress with the matter by e-mail. 

RESOLVED: That the intention be supported that the licences of those drivers who have not submitted certificates to evidence the mandatory safeguarding training has been completed be suspended using authority delegated to officers in Part 3(a) of the Council’s Constitution.